"My x husband was abused by his new wife for 11 yrs. Domestic charges
were filed against him 2x which were dropped by her. These rages his
wife had were always over my son & me. I could never figure that one
out. Needless to say my x was framed by his wife (and her new
boyfriend). He went to trial & did not get to testify in his own
behalf (lawyers advice). He is now serving 13-18 months in prison for a
crime he did not commit. An appeal has been filed, he shares the cell
with a convicted murderer. Where has our justice system gone? Our
families are in pain & most of all my son. This women made 6 years
of his childhood a pure hell. I cried many a night wondering if she was
going to hurt him when his father wasn't around. I never was afraid of
my x. So please say a prayer for our family. There are many bad people
in this world and women aren't exempt".

"Advice welcome."

"Chris"

Bear in mind that the narrative given above contradicts the feminist narrative, and so it is in the interest of feminism to suppress stories of this nature. And indeed, based on years of observation, we have found this to be the normative pattern of feminist behavior. Whatever puts men in the worst possible light gets exhibited front-and-center, and whatever puts women in a such a light gets tidied away into the shadows.

Monday, July 30, 2012

The Gift that Gives Diddly!

On the blog post just prior to this, I received the following comment from one who signs as Simpsons Didit:

Speaking of peaceful co existence with the feminists. . . . The feminists at manboobz have given u[s] the okay to be anonymous online just like them.

They pretty much agreed to no longer [call] us cowards for being anonymous non feminists online.

I say take full advantage of this gift our friends the feminists have given us.
9:06 AM

And because I am familiar with the non-issue in question, and have given it some thought in the past, I felt moved to compose a response in the following terms:

You know, this irritates the tar out of me, because the so-called "gift" was never even theirs to give in the first place!

I mean, don't they realize that anonymity and the use of "handles" is established protocol in cyberspace anyway?? It's par for the course; it's accepted and a way of life; everybody does it! Did they truly not know that?

Plus, what the hell does it matter, if somebody uses their real name or not? When you are preaching about ideas and issues, it's the content that counts. Who you are as a person doesn't make a speck of difference; you are just a political "voice". Just a channel. Nothing but a channel.

So I can see precisely what they're attempting. They're being sneaky, hoping they'll trick us into mixing the personal with the political.

Yes indeed, that is what they are doing.

At any rate, my own policy in this regard won't change. It's business as usual for the ol' 'Bogester. Life goes on.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

A Quick Reminder of Something Very Basic

We understand perfectly well what feminism is.

Feminist, don't you ever, ever, ever tell us that we don't understand what feminism is. We have studied feminism for years, in ways that you have never studied it. And we have learned things about feminism that you have never learned, and never will learn, because it would be impossible for you to know these things and still be a feminist.

You, feminist, are morally and intellectually incompetent to understand what feminism is. Everything you presume to tell us about feminism is, quite simply, rubbish. We can see very clearly what feminism is, having lived with it, and with its consequences, for half a century. As it is written somewhere in the Bible, "by their fruits shall ye know them." And the poison fruits of feminism are very, very evident to us indeed.

So, when you hear us non-feminists discussing feminism amongst ourselves, our talk might be difficult for you to comprehend. That is because we use the word "feminism" in a very different way than you do. Since we view feminism from the outside, as a system embedded in the universe at large, we possess an inherently higher level of information. Our knowledge, simply stated, is more complete, more holistic, more cosmopolitan, and more objective than yours. And this, our epistemic standpoint, is naturally reflected in our way of talking.

You are not us. . . and we are not you. And just as a person cannot fully see herself without the help of some external device -- a mirror, for example -- so likewise feminism cannot fully "see" itself. That can only happen by the help of some external device. And we, the rest of the world, ARE that device. We are that mirror.

Everything you know, or think you know, about feminism, is incomplete. And you cannot make good your incomplete knowledge simply by discussing feminist philosophy with other feminists. Such collective navel-gazing can do no better than drill you deeper and deeper into your collective navel. And the more profound becomes your knowledge of what feminists say about feminism, the more entrenched becomes your ignorance of what anybody else says about it. You believe that the world has a duty to understand feminism, but the truth is exactly the reverse.

Please don't bore us with the dictionary cop-out: "Look in the dictionary and see what feminism is"! All right, we looked, and what did we see? Alphanumeric characters stamped in ink upon a sheet of paper. Yes, yes, we know. Some bromide about "equality", right? But that tells us little or nothing of any value. You see, the world does not exist upon a sheet of paper, and unlike simple words such as dog, cat or apple, which map very clearly to tangible objects, "feminism" maps very poorly indeed.

So we have concluded that feminism can only be comprehended existentially, in real world terms -- as a set of practices and a set of consequences flowing from those practices.We have also concluded that to ask a feminist what feminism is, is only slightly more useful than consulting a dictionary. For we know by long experience that when a feminist describes feminism, this person is only describing what he or she personally believes feminism to be, and that such belief entails no epistemic warrant that ought to be considered privileged. In short, that to self-identify as "a feminist" puts you in no better position to know what feminism really is, than to self-identify otherwise.

Feminism impinges on our world as an alien force, gradually reducing the size and scope of our world and seeding it with dysfunction. We experience feminism as a pattern of linked developments trending toward a scripted future, and it does not amuse us to be told that what we are seeing "isn't really feminism", or that if we would read some feminist books we would learn what feminism really is. The irony is that we have indeed read our share of feminist books, and that such reading cements our conviction all the more because we see behind what the authors are saying.

Rather than listen to what feminism is supposed to mean, we elect to study tangible consequences and to draw conclusions from that quarter. Feminism's essence does not reside in some inner wellspring of theory or stated intention. Rather, it lies in what we plainly see happening in the realm of politics, or in the words and actions of undisciplined people. By these signs we know exactly what kind of world feminism would create.

Very well.. Feminism is nothing more and nothing less than what we ourselves define it to be. We look at the world, we outline a pattern of conditions and events, and we stick the word "feminism" to this pattern. We have taken control of the word itself, and by the same stroke, taken control of the discourse which surrounds the word. And in the light of our conclusions, we draw the necessary maps for all of our future campaigns.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Feminists Talking Out Their Ass Again

An action bulletin from the Feminist Majority Foundation recently arrived in my inbox, and I quote the following from it:

"Currently, 20-25% of all female students in the U.S. will experience some form of sexual assault during college. This is over 1 in 5 women. And 95% of these go unreported. The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE),
introduced first in 2011 and included this year in the Senate-passed
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), is the first step in fighting this
pervasive problem."

That is a big, bold, hefty statement all right, yet they presume that the general public will sop it up sight unseen. They presume far too much, since I am part of that general public myself, and I won't buy it if they don't stand up with good stiff proof that "over" 1 in 5 female students will experience "some form" of sexual assault while in college.

"Over" 1 in 5? Why that sounds "almost" like the old familiar 1 in 4 . . . doesn't it? And they don't bother telling us what "sexual assault" even means, let alone proving that it happens to as many women as they say it does. Do they? They simply take for granted that intellectual hucksterism will do the trick, and that none of us will be cheeky enough to to stand up against their brazen effrontery.

In fact, the feminists have no proof whatsoever that 20-25% of all female college students will be "sexually assaulted", and the supposed "fact" that 95% of this goes unreported makes the statement sound. . . oh. . . 95% more flakey than it did in the first place.The "problem" is, by no conclusive means, "pervasive". And the proposed solution to this questionably real state of affairs will only serve to ratchet up the culture of moral panic, paranoia, and anti-male tension in the campus environment.

There. I said it, and I don't need to prove it. If the Feminist Majority Foundation has a right to state their opinion, I have a right to state mine. Unfortunately, I am not a powerful political lobbying group, nor am I a pervasive ideological construct which controls the minds of millions and generally gets its way in matters of governance. In other words, I am not feminism. Nor, it should be obvious, am I a feminist.

For a refreshingly different take on campus "violence", have a look at the following well-supported research which informs us that the average woman in college faces whopping odds of 1 in 476 that she'll get raped during her student years:

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Plastering the Enemy on Their Own Turf!

Here is a little something that might amuse you, and make you go "hmmmm".

The picture that you see below shows the bulletin board in front of the Little Mountain Neighborhood House at Main and 24th in Vancouver, BC. This is a radical feminist hive posing as a community center -- which is classic, don't you think? Feminism is always posing as something else. It's what feminism does!

Anyhow, click on the graphic to get the full size, and observe the three flyers posted neatly in a row at the upper left. This is not feminist material -- it is pro-male stuff all the way!! The one on the left advertises a men's helpline that has recently been established. The one in the middle displays figures from StatsCanada, showing that men are the main victims of domestic violence in British Columbia. And the one to the right says "Women can stop rape."

The pro-male activist who targeted this location informs me that he spent a month coming back to post and re-post, and every time, the flyers had disappeared. But he persisted, and finally the feminists grew weary of patrol duty. At last report, the flyers shown here had gone unmolested for five whole days.

Ha! Now that's what I call carborundum illegitimi: Wear the bastards down!

Let us ALL work for Peace!

In accordance with FIRST PRINCIPLES, I reject the use of physical violence for political reasons, whether directed toward the property of others or toward their physical persons. I further reject the use of physical violence for personal reasons except where self-defense requires it. I counsel none to use any such violence as described, and I am not accountable for their actions when they do. Be it known that those who might in future commit such violence, never got any marching instructions from me.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Hey Feminists: We Need to Talk

Things are moving faster now, aren't they? Non-feminist and pro-male forces are gathering strength, and spreading their influence in countries around the world. More and more people are recognizing feminism for the corrupt, bloated monster it has become, and are wondering what to do about it.

If you're a feminist, then you ought to have some healthy curiosity about these matters. After all, you are vitally concerned in all of this whether you like it or not, and whether you know it or not.

So if the objective definition of the situation is important to you, then you've come to the right place. I have been part of this scene for almost ten years, and I've been a close observer and contributor. Furthermore, I've got the memory of an elephant, I am very branché (as they say in France), and I have my finger on the current pulse of things. So if you don't quite savvy what is happening over here in non-feminist land, then I'm just the man to bring you up to speed.

Here are the post-argumentalist rules of engagement:

1. I will not attempt to talk you out of feminism.
2. You will not attempt to talk me into feminism.

In other words, no debate or argument of any kind. The goal of these purely political talks is mutual clarification, to shed light upon the political topography. Some feminists appear to have bizarre ideas about "MRAs" and whatnot, so this is your chance to become the cool kid among your peer group, the one who is "in the know".

You may ask questions about what the non-feminist side is really doing or saying, and if I don't find these impertinent, I will offer a clear and frank reply. Trust me, you can learn much indeed from such a one as myself, if you are game for it. Somebody once called me "the E.F. Hutton of the pro-male movement", and I do strive to be worthy of that assessment.

Please note that nothing I might communicate will compromise the interest of the non-feminist side in any way.

Don't let fear, or guilt, or anything like that get in your way. I may be reached at the following address:

fidelbogen@earthling.net

Talks may, if deemed appropriate, be ported to the Skype platform.

This is your opportunity. You may take it, or not take it. Your choice, whichever way it goes, will be revelatory.

According to Some People, Male Human Rights is an "Utter Abomination"

Non-feminist political existence is spreading across Canada, leapfrog style, and already the powers-that-be are launching into backlash mode against it. Case in point: A pro-male placard recently appeared at the airport in Edmonton (YEG), and was violently attacked. People at the scene physically defaced the placard, of course, but that's not all. Anti-male elements soon took it to the interwebs, too! The following was posted on Tumblr, and it speaks for itself:

So to explain the self-evident, a pro-male partisan posted this placard, which displays the web address of A Voice for Men. Almost immediately, a kneejerk feeding frenzy of backlash kicked in. It seems that some folks don't want feminist dogma to be challenged in the forum of public discourse. Nor, I would guess, do they wish to see the male population galvanized as a self-aware political bloc which is vigilant for its interests. Only women are permitted to do that, don't ya know? Well if you think that is a terribly one-sided double standard, you are entirely correct.

At some point, somebody snapped this photo, and proceeded to post it on Tumblr. The following is a screen capture of some comments which the photo inspired. As you can clearly see, somebody thinks that "men's rights" is a laughable idea, and somebody else is struck speechless by such an "utter abomination".

"What? Men are human beings with human rights? What an utter abomination!!"

Already, the forces of backlash have sprung to life, and a grassroots campaign of sorts has been launched in Edmonton, to put the kibosh on this silly business of so-called male human rights. Well. What we are seeing here is a taste of things to come. Just imagine how the cat fur is gonna fly, when counter-feminist presence becomes publicly visible all over the world everywhere.

Be vigilant, my brothers and sisters. If the other side must use violence, then mark my words, it will. More importantly, it will use spin, smear and slander tactics -- in other words, aggression. We have seen this already, and will undoubtedly see more.

We, of course, reject the use of violence in all but extreme cases of self-defense. However, the other side hasn't got such scruples, and they do command the engines of violence in many forms -- physical and spiritual, political and cultural, directly and by proxy.

Never forget that feminism is the ruling paradigm over much of the world, that the law and the mechanisms of governance are largely feminized, and that when you challenge the feminist power structure on ANY level, you are effectively butting heads with the power of the STATE, and you are likely to catch some nasty pushback if you make your presence felt too keenly.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Down to the Bedrock Once Again

Once again, it is time for a timely replay. I mean, this is like having a code library when you are writing computer programs. You save yourself work by recycling legacy work. In the present case, the plan is to reiterate foundational messages like a psychic drumbeat -- mixing them, remixing them, mashing them up in different combinations with a counterpoint that evolves over time, always toward a greater distillation of political efficiency.

So, do you think the feminists will stop what they are doing just because somebody convinces them they are mistaken? They will do no such thing, and that is why we must work over them, around them, and right straight through them.

Let us not hesitate to throw their tricks back at them, and cram the shoe onto the other foot. There is no need to be nice about this. We ought to study very carefully what they are doing to us and then, with certain modifications, treat them to the same. They claim to occupy the moral high ground, but bear in mind the utter fraudulence of their title. And knowing that they will never relinquish this fraudulent title voluntarily, let us feel free to mirror their tactics, to shove them off the moral high ground in a perfectly underhanded way, and to occupy that ground ourselves.

Remember that this is a war, and the goal of any war is to WIN. Remember also that it is a waste of time to play straight with a crook, and not only that, it is literally impossible to do so. For just as you cannot drive straightly on a crooked road, so too you cannot deal straightly with crooked people, and it is a mistake to even try. You are entitled to be, at the very least, disingenuous with them -- and they should be thankful if that is the worst you ever do. Good faith is not required equipment in your dealings with feminists, and you may assume, as a matter of policy, that every feminist you meet operates in bad faith.

That is harsh, but I'm afraid it's just the state of the game at this point in history. We, the non-feminist men and women of planet Earth, didn't ask for any of this. It dropped into our lives uninvited, and we must sort out the consequences one way or another. The enemy has never played nice, and that means we are not morally obligated to do so either. Feminism is the aggressor, the aggressor has set the terms of engagement, and the aggressor can either jump off that train or ride it to the end of the line.

But if the feminists are willing to negotiate a plan of co-existence with the rest of the world, we non-feminist men and women will engage them precisely in a spirit of negotiation, as one sovereign power to another. And we will monitor them closely for any sign of trickery, because we understand their capacity for violence in all forms. We mean to drive a hard bargain, but we seek to avoid the worst for all concerned, and in the end we strive only for what is eminently fair.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Thinking Globally About What Happens Locally

Misandry, male-bashing, man-hating, anti-male bias. Call it what you will, but it happens all over the world in a pattern that ought to be clear. And it had best stop, or there will be some merry hell to pay. I am predicting this (not prescribing it), because I would like to head off trouble before it arrives on everybody's doorstep. I want to avoid the worst. I want to be the self-defeating prophet whose predictions NEVER come true, but that will happen only if my words, and the words of other people like me, are taken up and taken to heart. So what say you, gentle reader? Do you want to steer the world away from future violence? Do you simply not give a rip? Or do you wish (as the feminists wish) to encourage the growth of violence in the interest of a political agenda? Reflect upon this, and take your stand to one side or the other.

All right, have a look at this clipping from an Indian newspaper -- the Deccan Chronicle of Hyderabad. This was shared to the worldwide pro-male community by an activist in India, and it speaks tons. You should pay particular attention to the final paragraph, which resonates with the state of affairs on a global scale. As the song says, "signs, signs, everywhere signs!" The growing trend is to view men as moral pariahs and dogs, and to view maleness itself as pathological.

Domestic Violence Shelter for Men -- Help Out With Funding!

There are almost no domestic violence shelters for men in the United States, although there are hundreds for women. Yes, we all know that men are victims of DV in roughly half of all cases, and women in the other half. But despite the symmetry, only a fraction of one percent of all U.S. shelters accept male victims. In light of the situation, that sounds a trifle unbalanced. Don't you think so?

Why, you would think that with men being half of all DV victims, the shelters would populate themselves accordingly. You'd think they would do that, wouldn't you? I mean, that would be eminently reasonable, wouldn't it? Surely it is a grotesque double standard that men, who are fully half of all domestic
violence victims, cannot find refuge from violent women.

And yet the feminists give the dagger an extra twist when they proclaim that men commit a whopping 95% of all domestic violence. That is what the feminists say, and they have been saying it for thirty years or more! I think it is ironic and revealing that the false ratio of 95% male perpetrators to 5% female perpetrators so closely mimics the disproportionality of shelter services available to men and women respectively.

But it doesn't stop there. For not only do the feminists blame men for the bulk all of domestic violence, but they actually pretend to know what motivates such behavior. Now, the following might seem to imply that the feminists have unnatural omniscience or clairvoyance, but this is them talking, not me. Get ready. They have repeatedly informed us, over the years, that men commit domestic violence because they (men) wish to exert "patriarchal power and control" over women! No, I am not making that up. The feminists really do say that!

Proof? They don't need any bloody proof! They're feminists, so they can pull "facts" out of their ass any time they wish to do so. And why? Because they're "the women's movement", that's why!

Now, you and I know perfectly well that a man might take a pop at his wife for any number of reasons, and that most of these have fuck all to do with so-called "patriarchy". For example, she might have nagged him beyond endurance while he suffered from an agonizing toothache -- or some equally poignant scenario. Furthermore, you and I might reasonably demand to know where in hell the feminists get their intimate knowledge about millions of people they've never even met. Have the feminists got surveillance gear and paid informants to keep tabs on every single household in the country? Is there a board-certified "feminist-in-residence" sitting at every family dinner table, taking notes about the socio-dynamics? Do they know for a certifiable FACT that every time a man slaps his woman around, he is driven by strictly "patriarchal" motives, and none other?

But rest assured, my friend, they're feminists. So they can pull "facts" out of their ass any time they wish to do so. And why? Because they're "the women's movement", that's why!

All right. Not only do the feminists lie through their teeth when they say that men commit the bulk of all domestic violence, but they turn around and lie about the motivational underpinning of the same very behavior they lied about in the first place. So yes, they stack one lie on top of another, and they shamelessly repeat this over and over and over . . and they never quit!

And mark my words, they never will. Or not unless they are compelled, in some harsh way, to do so.

But the reason I am writing this now, is to tell you about a man in Ohio who plans to open a domestic violence shelter for men. And he is in the fund-raising stage this very minute. He needs to pull together $100,000, and so far he has $110, so clearly he has a way to go. But he means to bank the proceeds of the present campaign and immediately run another campaign in order to secure the necessary money. Go here to read all about it:http://www.indiegogo.com/GeoSafeHouse

This, indeed, is activism to help men. And in the fullness of my heart I salute all such efforts. I want to see these efforts multiply, succeed wildly, and then multiply some more. To my mind, helping men and damaging feminism cannot be viewed in isolation from each other. The two are intertwined and indeed morally identical, so take your pick because it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. In the near future, I will chip in $50 toward this men's domestic violence shelter. Then I will turn again to my own way of helping men -- by savaging feminism with words and encouraging a culture of counter-feminist mockery that will force feminism to crawl back under the nearest convenient rock.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

George Rolph is Keeping Busy!

It seems that the illustrious George Rolph, pro-male activist in the Sceptered Isle of Albion (that would be England, fyi), is up to his customary mischief these days! (George would be a familiar name to many of you, especially if you've been around the scene for a few years.) Well this goes to show that the non-feminist revolution is chewing away at the feminist elephant from many angles, and in many corners of the earth. Truly we are versatile, we are everywhere, and we are not slowing down.

So. . .George has uploaded (to YouTube) some BBC news videos that include footage of himself in action, and discussing his work. Here is one of them. For an extra treat, you'll "enjoy" the segment where Erin Pizzey describes violence and death threats from radical feminists in London during the early 1970s::

And the following is taken from a statement which George posted in the lowbar on his channel:

"This film was made by the BBC Inside Out team to show our efforts at
trying to get the government to help male victims of abuse. Listen
closely to what Erin Pizzey says about Ken Livingstone, left wing leader
of the GLC (Greater London Council) and later, Mayor of London.
Livingstone claimed to me on a live radio program that he had not heard
of male victims of abuse. However, Erin points out that Livingstone gave
her a house for male victims when head of the GLC. Livingstone later
admitted to me privately that he DID know about male victims.
Conclusion? The left wing were doing all they could to downplay male
victims and to refuse to offer them help or support because they wished
to support the Marxist-Feminist political cause and that meant being
ready to lie about the extent of female violence in the home. That, to
me, is unspeakably wicked and has lead to many tragic events, deaths and
the abuse of men and children which could have been avoided. Once
again, the left placed ideology before the people. They still do. Stop
voting for these vermin!. . . ".

To read the rest of this, you'll need to click through to the channel itself. I hope you'll give the video a "like" and maybe a comment or two. Oh, and spread links via Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, et al. That would be brilliant!

Friday, July 20, 2012

Yes, this Attacks Feminism!

An important pro-male meeting is scheduled to be held in London in early Autumn of this year:

"Male sexual violation through the life cycle" -- A one day conference exploring the psychological impacts of sexual violence against men and boys -- Saturday 29th September, 11am -4.30pm (registration from 10.30am)

Anything that is pro-male is against feminism. That much is axiomatic. So even if activities like this don't attack feminism by name, they do serve to undermine and subvert it in a very powerful way, for which we can be thankful. In terms of the big picture, this conference is as much "activism" as a street demonstration would be, as petitioning or lobbying would be, as composing reader comments would be, as writing agitational blog posts would be, as publishing YouTube videos would be, as running a domestic violence refuge for men would be, and so on. All of the listed items may be described as actions trending toward a common outcome, and insofar, we consider them activistic in the broad sense of the word.

Feminism, as a social organism, sucks energy from the world in many ways, and counter-feminist action works to block this at precisely the relevant points. That is true whether you are working to help men, with no reference to feminism by name, or working to damage feminism by name, with no reference to men. Either way, it's all one and it's all good.

If you are a feminist, you might be saying "but. . . but. . . what about the women?".
And my answer would be: "Yes, what ABOUT the women? I'm talking about
the men now. We'll talk about the women some other time!"

Since the aim of feminism, consciously or not, is to damage men, then it is quite in order to damage feminism if you care about men. And if you believe that to attack feminism is to attack women, then you should consider the likely repercussions that feminism's attack on men will ultimately have on women, and ask yourself if it is really so bad for women after all, to attack feminism.

But again, if you are a feminist, you might take offense at my words about feminism and insist that I don't really know what feminism is. And my answer would be: "Ahhh...so we have a difference of opinion! Well guess whose opinion I value?" Then I would instruct you to get back in the feminist clubhouse with the other feminists and tell each other whatever you needed to tell each other.

All right, so the upcoming Male Sexual Violation Conference, in London, is good for men because it seeks answers to men's problems in life. That alone puts it at odds with feminism, because if such answers are found then men will end up stronger and freer -- or in a word, more empowered. And that would run flat contrary to the aims of feminism, wouldn't it?

But wait, there is even more to like about the upcoming conference. One of the conferees is a woman named Zoe Loderick, and I give you her descriptive blurb below:

"Zoe Loderick - Discussing
her experience of working with male survivors of sexual violence in a
socio-political environment that is dominated by a belief that rape is a
gendered crime. Exploring her observations and implications for men's
recovery."

Ahhh....did you catch that? But of course you did! We know good and well that feminism is directly to blame for the idea that "rape is a gendered crime", and we know the evil consequences for men which this idea has spawned. So the scheduled London conference doesn't just talk about men's problems in general. It talks about a very specific problem which feminism itself has specifically created -- and in so doing, it puts a critically important piece of feminist ideology under the knife.

Now THAT is what I call attacking feminism! I would also call it a sign of the times, but that's another story.

Very well. They are doing good work for men and against feminism, over there in London, just as I am doing good work for men and against feminism right here at my computer. I, and those people in London, are parts of a globally distributed karmic machine which is closing in upon the femplex from all sides. We are all, in our several ways, "activists". Our joint venture is not the so-called "men's rights movement", but something far bigger which hasn't quite got a proper name yet. However, I have chosen to call it the non-feminist revolution*, because I think that phrase suits it to a 'T'.

To my fellow workers in the vineyard, all the best!

-----------------------------------------

*Giving credit where it is due, I cannot claim paternity for the phrase "non-feminist revolution". In fact, this nomenclature first sprang from the keyboard of the non-feminist blogger Davout, who typed it during an online conversation we had about 4 years ago.

"We’ve already got a great range of speakers lined up for this year’s conference on Friday November 2nd
and we’d also love to hear from you if you have a suggestion for
someone you’d love to speak at the conference – or if you’d like to put
yourself forward as a speaker this year.

"We’d hate to miss out on having a really great speaker at the
conference simly because we hadn’t heard of them or thought to ask them.

"The theme of the Second National Conference for Men and Boys is
“Building The Sector Together” and so we are looking to our speakers to
inspire and motivate delegates to take actions that will help us build a
dynamic sector working with men and boys in the UK."

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Is There Any Excuse for Feminist Aggression?

If you have studied feminist behavior for as long as we seasoned veterans have done, you'll have noted that much of their aggression against the activated non-feminist sector, and the pro-male project in particular, takes the form of slander and name-calling. Broadly speaking, such aggression occurs under two headings, and I will discuss each of these in turn. Firstly, the feminists aggress against us as a group by conducting smear campaigns. This means that they will corral us arbitrarily with people, parties, platforms, ideologies and so on, to which we are not necessarily linked. For example, how are "misogyny", anti-semitism, white supremacism or the Tea Party movement necessarily linked to the defense of male human rights against feminist aggression? The answer is that the former are unconnected, at their core, to the latter -- and that the latter can troop ahead just fine without the former tagging along. However, we must admit that pro-male gathering places in cyberspace often have a pungent mix of such elements, and that the lay public (non-feminist or otherwise) has a full view of this. And so the feminists take advantage. They know perfectly well that a random mix of strangers on a web forum is not a "movement" any more than a bunch of guys sitting at a bar would be. After all, anybody can pop in there -- and quite a few do! And they also know perfectly well that to advocate men's human rights is intellectually unrelated to, say, opposing abortion rights. Belief in either one mandates no belief in the other. Finally, they know perfectly well that if somebody makes a "misogynistic" comment, and somebody else voices no objection, it puts zero tarnish on the principle that men have human rights. But still, in all of these ways and more, the feminists take advantage. And well they know it.

Yes, that is how a smear campaign works. The verb "to smear" is a metaphor. Just
imagine putting ten or twelve blobs of differently-colored paint side by side,
and literally smearing them together with your fingers. I think you get the idea. And if your name is Arthur Goldwag of the Southern Poverty Law Center, you know exactly where I'm coming from. Don't pretend that you don't, fool!

Secondly, the feminists aggress against us as individuals by redirecting the discussion toward our real or imputed character flaws. For example, it packs no intellectual weight whatsoever call somebody a "neckbeard", or to suggest that he "lives in his mother's basement". Thus, if Norris Neckbeard says "every triangle is a three-sided figure", and Frieda Feminist says "Norris Neckbeard lives in his mother's basement, therefore he is wrong", then Frieda Feminist is guilty of argumentum ad hominem, which means that her statement packs no intellectual weight. So if Norris further states that "men are human beings and they have human rights", and Frieda replies as before, that Norris is wrong because he lives in his mother's basement, then once again Frieda is guilty of argumentum ad hominem, which means that her words pack no intellectual weight. But look now, let's try this another way. Suppose that Frieda Feminist knew for a fact that Norris Neckbeard was a child molester -- which is a damn sight worse than living in your mother's basement! Would that modify the truth value of Norris's original statement about triangles? Well if I know my geometry, the effect would be diddly-boo. But more interestingly, how would it effect the truth value of Norris's second statement? If it be known for a fact that Norris Neckbeard is a child molester, would that damage the principle that men are human beings with human rights? All right, now suppose Norris is a homophobe, or a Tea Party dude, or an anti-abortionist, or an anti-semite, or a PUA lounge-lizard, or anything else of a similar controversy rating. If Norris Neckbeard were any or all of these things, would it remove one single chip from the universal principle that men are human beings with human rights? Or would it diminish, by even a molecule, the fact that Norris himself is a human being with human rights?

It is both revealing and damning, when the feminists make use of such tactics (and strategies) as I have outlined here. It reveals that they have no real ammunition to use against us and can only fling mud. It furthermore reveals their aggression in all of its naked obscenity, and this damns them.
On that note I rest my case, leaving you to ruminate upon all of this as your own wisdom guides you.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Misandry is a Global Cancer

The following is from a pro-male activist in India. And yes, I do mean activist. In India, they have taken it to the next level, and they do far more than just talk about how bad things are. Mind you, not that such talking should ever cease as a political activity. In fact -- more, more, MORE. . .if you please! The feminists hate it when you talk against feminism and expose its lies, hypocrisies, aggressions and crimes. Their panic-stricken desire to shut us up is quite evident, and quite revealing of how deeply they fear us.

All right. File this dispatch under "news and views from around the world." The cancer of misandry, in both its cultural and institutional forms, is worldwide. And so too, the pro-male project is spreading worldwide in response to it. In my customary way, I have color-highlighted passages that I deem especially pertinent:

"Raman Singh, Chief Minister of Chattisgarh - one of the most
under-developed yet most resource rich region in India claims - that if son commits a crime, father should be punished. Because, its all DNAs fault. And, since son's DNA comes from his father, so son cannot be
anything but as his father's DNA.

"We can laugh at his
inaccurate scientific knowledge, we can even get condescendingly
depressed about the "future" of the nation - kya hoga is desh ka? (what
will happen to this nation?)... amidst all this we might miss that Raman's statement is not an anomalyin our chivalrous society - where
maleness means "power" and responsibility for every damn thing under the
sky. When men fail in playing up to his "masculine" role for example men
who have been victims of rape or domestic violence by women - they are
most hated not by women, who clinically ostracise them, but by other
men. Why? Because the abused, weak, powerless men (homeless, jobless,
penniless, victims of psychological, physical violence, etc) who remind
the other "manly" men, the onerous and exploitative burden society and
women have placed on men to serve their interest and severity of social
oblivion in failure.

"Why do men displace responsibility of all
that goes wrong on other men and men only? Because we are trained to
feel that being man means being "responsible" - failure in getting the
desired outcome is failure of taking responsibility, which obviously
translates into being a falure as a man - being a non-man, a sub-human.

"So we don't understand that it is poverty, systemic oppression, greed
and individual criminality of humans' and not singularly men's which is
responsible for various crimes.

"We need to fight hatred of men
and fathers - within ourselves and without in the societies. And for
this we need to reject social tendencies to automatically shift
responsibilities on men. Creating boundaries between our
responsibilities and that which are not ours is an essential. Although
like all worthwhile changes its easier said than done. "

A quick afterthought. There is a certain breed of "non-radical" feminist who would quickly pipe up and inform you that misandry is a product of "patriarchy" (which "hurts men too"), and that we should work with feminism in order to address these concerns.

Well. If "working with feminism" were an operable policy, we would certainly give it a go. But see, that's just the problem. Feminists are, by definition, people whom you cannot work with. In fact, "feminist you can work with" is a flat-out oxymoron, just as "five-sided quadrilateral" would be.

A feminist you could work with, would ipso-facto not be a feminist.

The nicely-spoken "moderate" feminists are WORSE than the radicals. With the radicals, you at least know where you stand. But the moderate ones are like subtle serpents with a slower-acting poison. You don't realize at first that you've been poisoned, but poisoned you are indeed -- and it all carries you to the same end of the same road in the long haul.

We are willing to transact with feminist individuals on one basis only, and that is for the purpose of negotiation. Specifically, we are willing to negotiate the manner of co-existence between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector. So in the end, this is all about settling a boundary dispute between sovereign powers. We frankly do not believe that feminism, as a social organism, is capable of such dialogue -- for that would be tantamount to a radical negation of feminism itself. However, since we understand the politics of gesture, we are willing to extend the offer of negotiation as a gesture.

But know ye this, oh feminist, that when you confer with us under the white flag of truce, you are dealing with a sovereign power, and that diplomatic canons of behavior shall be the order of the day. So if you waltz in here like a lord with an officer's commission, presuming to meddle in non-feminist business or men's business specifically, then we hope you will accept our cordial invitation to the theological place of eternal punishment.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Men Can Stop Rape? Whatever!

The above video has aroused plenty of complicated, acrimonious emotions -- mostly on the feminist side. What's significant, is that virtually none of that response contains intellectual feedback to what the script was actually, in fact, saying. So what does it tell us, when the ones who oppose us cannot process our existence, and our message, in a reality-based way?It tells us they have a fatal weakness that we can exploit.

Yes, this is the kind of thing that the average feminist would disapprove of, or at best be indifferent to. And remember, it is axiomatic that whatever is good for men is bad for feminism, and vice-versa!

A Big Hullabaloo Down Under!

Our very own Dr. Greg Canning (at AVfM) has resigned his academic post at James Cook University under quite dramatic circumstances. The following is from the Melbourne Herald-Sun:

"JCU School of Medicine adjunct senior lecturer Dr Greg Canning has
quit his teaching job of 10 years, claiming the university failed to
caution Adjunct Associate Professor Betty McLellan, who he has accused of
publicly practicing sexual vilification.

"Dr McLellan, from the
School of Arts and Social Sciences, is a feminist ethicist and
psychotherapist, with more than 20 years experience. She has written
several books, and regularly contributes opinion pieces to radical
feminism websites such as the Coalition for a Feminist Agenda.

"Dr
Canning, who is a men's health advocate, said he took great offence to
some of Dr McLellan's writings. An opinion piece, written by Dr McLellan
on website Radfem Hub titled 'The Question on Nobody's Lips', states
"even with all the evidence we have that something's not quite right
with the male of the species, there is still impenetrable resistance to
focusing on men's behaviour and asking: what is it about men?"

"Dr Canning, who also works as a skin cancer specialist, said the article clearly painted all men as violent or sexual predators."

Indeed. . . Spiritual Violence Against Men, a.k.a. MISANDRY, is a very real part of the world, and it seeps everywhere in the cultural soil like the outflow from an overfilled septic tank. All right, read the entire Herald-Sun article, below. Dr. Canning would like you to leave a comment, too, if you have time:

Oh... and he tells me that he might get on local TV, there in Australia, to give his side of the story. Any way you cut it, this is making some waves. So, do spread the word!

Notice that Ms. McLellan has been a contributor to the Radfem Hub website. Remember that one? It's the home of the infamous private forum from which the Agent Orange files were gathered. So yes, Ms. McLellan, the "feminist ethicist", is mixed up with a mighty pungent crowd there -- wouldn't you say? Note also that McLellan is a psychotherapist. Gads! Can you IMAGINE going to her if you wanted to "sort your stuff out"?? Personally, I think it's an abomination that such a one as Betty McLellan is even licensed in that field.

Is there any professional review board to which somebody could report her? I would love to know, but I'm afraid I know the answer already. And that is, that reporting would have no effect at all because the group is already packed with people like her anyway.

Official Recognition that Hatred of Men is REAL

Yes, it belongs to the mother tongue now. I mean that the Official Bigwigs of Erudition who write the Oxford English Dictionary have deigned to rubberstamp the word MISANDRY as a regular, real part of the English language.

But hey, they're just doing their job as lexicographers. They have kept an eye on things, and they have noticed that a lot of people are using this word. With upstanding professionalism they have made note of it, recognizing what ought to be obvious, that dictionaries don't create language, but language creates dictionaries.

A word becomes a word the minute it pops out of somebody's mouth, the only criterion for including a word in a dictionary is that enough people use it often enough that it merits the expenditure of ink and paper.

Non-inclusion doesn't make a word any less of a word, of course, but its presence in the dictionary can powerfully silence people who do entertain such superstitions.

What goes for new words, goes for definitions of existing words. Thus, you will see many words with more than one definition, and when enough people start using a word in some new way, the alert lexicographer will make note of that usage and add it to the list. So, for example, the word "feminism" might be defined as "the project to increase the power of women", or even as "female supremacism" if people in sufficient numbers started using it that way. Mind you, not that you must wait for the lexicographers to catch up. But it's right handy when they eventually do.

However, please note that the Learned Bigwigs got something wrong. They say the word 'misandry' dates from the 1940s, but in fact it has been noted as early as 1878 (in English), and the word misandric (also in English) as early as 1871.

And the word misandrie (in German) has been traced clear back to 1803.

New Video -- The Non-Feminist Coalition Rejects Violence

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Intermezzo

Policy Statement of the Non-Feminist Coalition: We Reject Violence

Violence is unnecessary and counter-productive as a political method of operation. We, the politically activated non-feminist coalition, reject the use of violence except as the imperatives of self-defense might dictate.

But at the same time, we realize that if conditions x, y and z are
in place and continue unabated, then violence, as a primordial force in
the world-at-large, will be the probable outcome. This violence may channel itself through numerous subcultures, agendas, ideologies and so on. And yet, being primordial, it will transcend all of those. Such is the nature of a primordial force -- natural, impersonal, chaotic, and not "political" as most people would understand that term.

Pragmatically speaking, this means that if a targeted demographic is
subjected to x,y and z systemically and en masse, then “violence” in its
limitless and twisted forms, will be the result. Therefore, without prescribing violence, we may safely (and quite ethically) predict its appearance in the world, as a natural consequence of certain conditions.

Again, the politically activated non-feminist coalition finds no profit in promoting, instigating or advocating violence. We are painfully aware that objective conditions will breed violence independently of anything we say, or don't say, about the situation. So in effect, we do not need to push the river. It is enough for us to sit upon the bank, gaze upstream, and make note of what the current will deliver.

Hence prediction becomes our weapon, or rather our shield. For it keeps us, the predictors, upon
the moral high ground. The
other side can either listen, and heed our wise counsel
proactively, or carry on with business as usual. If they choose the
latter, they will come down on the wrong side of history.

This is somewhat like the Mafia game of “making them an offer they
can’t refuse.” But there is a vast difference because, when the
Mafia does this, it is a threat of Mafia violence plain and simple.

But when we do this we are issuing no threat of any kind, since the only threatening element is a force majeure,
beyond our control. The threat is, therefore, ambient, and we are merely directing attention to what should be obvious.Yet we are making an “offer”, namely, an offer to
advise the other side for its benefit, and for the benefit of the world. And if they are wise, they will not refuse this. Rather, they will lend an ear. Are we not predicting the eruption of primordial violence, and making it clear how to prevent such a thing?

When we warn of an imminent danger, we discharge our duty. Thereafter, the onus falls upon the other side, and we have only to sit beneath a tree with arms folded, and make note of how the other side
measures up. We have summoned them to accountability and responsibility, and our merit in so doing will characterize us, even as their failure to heed the summons would characterize them.

When the other side proffers violence -- whether physically or spiritually, openly or
by proxy -- they choose to be the aggressor. And since
the rule is that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement, the
non-aggressor is morally entitled, in a pinch, to answer like with like.

Yes, violence becomes an acceptable method of operation only if undertaken in self-defense, and only if the onus of moral transgression is clearly seen to fall upon the other side.

In the end, we wish to keep violence, and all unhappy consequences of the
present historical crisis, to an absolute minimum. Accordingly, the other side
confronts a moral choice -- to either collaborate with such a project, or
to hinder it. And whichever road they follow, history will judge them.

------------------------------

Note: this is an amended version of an earlier blog post, which I have since deleted.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Have You Seen this Man?

Readers in Europe, North America, Latin America, Australia, the Philippines etc, mightn't know much about this. But there is a chance that my Indian readers could be of some help here. For convenience, the textover on the photo reads as follows:

"MISSING Name:PRITAM BHATTACHARJEE, MISSING FROM NAUGACHIA STATION BIHAR ON THE WAY TO DELHI BY ABADH ASSAM EXPRESS SINCE 09.07.2012IF ANYONE IS ABLE TO TRACE HIM PLEASE CONTACT SRI SHANKAR BATTACHARJEE9435500723 / 9435170361"

Keep your Eye on the Creeping Trends

We all know that men now compose, on average, about 40% of all college students -- so it looks like the zero point on that particular equality scale has gone a bit astern...eh? In a similar vein, we have all heard about 'Title IX', which seeks to equalize participation in sports programs by pushing out men who. . .well. . . want to participate in sports programs.

By these and other tokens, we are made aware of the growing anti-male chill in the world of higher academia. Want more examples? Well, how about being herded into an auditorium and lectured by some asshole on the theme of "She Fears You"?

Or how about being tried for rape on a slight pretext, by extra-judiciary proceedings in a "star chamber", to a preponderance of evidence standard, and being scarred for life by a so-called court decision that has no legal standing.

Truly, spiritual violence against the male population takes many forms, in academia and elsewhere. But. . I digress.

Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might suspect that "somebody" is conspiring to push men out of higher academia in general because "somebody" wants the future intellectual class in society to be female-dominated. And hence, more than likely, feminist dominated.

However, I am not a conspiracy theorist, because I do not theorize conspiracy. I do not feel that I need to do so. I simply cast my eye upon the facts and trends of the world, and call 'em as I see 'em. So I reckon I'm a bit of a phenomenologist in that respect, eh? Things simply are what they are, and they happen as they happen. And for general purposes we may focus on just precisely that, and bracket the rest. Yes, sometimes it helps if you are deep enough to be "shallow".

But enough of all this. Now here is some recent news. A motion is afoot, to extend the provisions of Title IX so as to limit the number of male students admitted to Science programs, i.e. the celebrated "STEM" cluster of academic disciplines. It seems they haven't got enough equality in that realm yet, so they intend to make the scale balance even if they must put their thumb on it.

So, is somebody literally conspiring to load the intellectual class with females rather than males? Is somebody literally conspiring to smuggle more "feminists" into the world of science, so that they can do "feminist science"? I will offer no conclusive opinion here.Yet I cannot doubt that the suggested outcomes will indeed occur, whether anybody planned it that way or not. And I also know with dead certainty that plenty of actual people would be delighted to see this happen.

On that note, I send you to the following article, which enlarges upon the present Title IX topic:

What is Visitation Abuse?

You've heard of it by now. Visitation abuse is most commonly inflicted upon men, specifically fathers. In the aftermath of a divorce, the female ex-spouse will simply refuse to allow the male ex-spouse to visit his own children according to the court-mandated visitation schedule. This is technically illegal, but in the real world, judges and court systems don't give a rip -- the aggrieved father will in most cases be brushed aside and ignored, and not permitted to visit his own children. Needless to say, this is just what the average feminist wants to see happening. I mean, we can't have men influencing children now . . . can we? Above all, we cannot have any of that "dad and lad" male bonding which propagates the sinews of patriarchy across the generations. Right? So fathers must be kept entirely out of the picture wherever possible, and reduced to a support function only. That is, in plain English: "Pay up and suck up, sucker!" It's an outcome which every feminist, in her heart of hearts, looks fondly upon.

All right. It may interest you to know that certain legislators in the state of Illinois have decided to do something about this. They have drafted something called the "Visitation Interference Bill" -- alternately, the "Steve Watkins Bill". This legislation will put serious teeth into the law, and light a fire under the asses of judges who don't want to enforce it. The juice of the matter is summarized as follows:

"Synopsis: Amends the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act at 750 ILCS 5 section 607.1 pertaining to visitation abuse. Provides that, in addition to the listed remedies available to the court on a finding of visitation abuse, the court may also, suspend the driving privileges of the offending parent, revoke professional licenses of the offending parent, and fine the offending parent up to $500.00 for each finding of visitation abuse. Provides that if a parent has been previously found in contempt by the court for visitation abuse the court may further incarcerate the offending parent and or require the offending party to post a $5,000.00 bond subject to forfeiture for the purpose of assuring compliance with future visitation."

Did you catch that? Stiff fines, revoked licenses and possible jail time for the scofflaw parent -- in most cases mom, as we all sadly know. So I think you can see that this is a landmark bill, and likely a precedent-setter which will spawn copycatting around the country.

Very well, here is a 10-page PDF file which summarizes the pith of the Steve Watkins Bill. Have a read, and decide what you think:

Decolonizing Male Space -- One Step at a Time

I mean, the reestablishment of male space needs to take root somewhere, right? So why not in the public schools? And you know what else? I don't give one single goddamned tin-plated rip-snort if this "creates stereotypes" or helps to perpetuate "sexism" -- whatever the hell "sexism" is supposed to mean. Come on, let's face it, men and women are different! We needn't "stereotype" men and women at all, since Nature has beaten us to the punch and done that job already. So the whole question is moot. Rather than creating "stereotypes", we are merely acknowledging archetypes -- which is a sane, sensible, rational policy, and long overdue.

So yes, that makes me an essentialist -- which puts me in the fine company of the extreme radical feminists, who are likewise essentialists.That's ironic, don't you think so?

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Raped by a Feminist!

A Sprightly Thought Which Dances Merrily in your Mind

Earlier today, I was over at 'A Voice for Men', reading John-the-Other's description of the recent Slutwalk in Vancouver. (No, not Vancouver, Wa. The real Vancouver!)

He reports an event hugely diminished from the previous year. Yes, Slutwalk was a flash-in-the-pan, it seems. And now it is dying.

So at the risk of sounding facetious, why not give Slutwalk a boost into its grave? I mean, let's put up signs and posters all along the parade route, bearing the sentence "This Way to Patriarchy Cliff". A set of markers would lead to an actual, literal cliff -- not a metaphorical one. Do you suppose the Slutwalkers would be stupid enough to slutwalk their way over a cliff? It's an intriguing question, for sure.

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Intermezzo

Sunday, July 01, 2012

Sharon Osbourne and Crew, Carved into Strips and Deep-Fried in Acid

This is why I can't possibly get fussed about it, when I hear men making mildly "sexist" or "chauvinistic" remarks about women. In all honesty, I have never heard men saying anything nearly as vile about women, as these BIMBOS are saying about the husband of Katherine Kieu Becker. Well, only rarely. Veryrarely. And sure as hell not on prime time television! Seriously now, suppose that some guy in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, tied up his girlfriend and carved her clit off with a ginzu knife. What do you reckon the fate of Jay Leno would be, if he delivered a yukkety-yuk monologue about this incident? You and I know perfectly well, that Jay Leno would be spectacularly fired from his job and spend the rest of his life under a dark, stinking cloud of disgrace.

However, what stinks most of all here is the rotten double standard. I presume that you all smell it as keenly as I do.

Now, who can forget the collective roar of female approval that arose when Lorena Bobbitt did her bloody business years ago? What do you think, does it mean all or most women are really as bad as you might conclude? Well., no. I'd rather think the poet summed it up best, that "the best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity." Which is still quite the hellhole of a situation, don't you think so?

So gents, feel free to say all of the mildly sexist and mildly chauvinistic or generally snarky things about women that you feel inclined to say. If the festivities never get any worse than this, then women in general and feminists in particular can frankly suck it up. What's fair for the gander is fair for the goose. Equality of snarking opportunity, all the way! I will not personally join in, but I won't be harsh on you at all. I will not judge you. I understand that your feelings are existentially honest, and real, and flow from a place of existential honesty and reality within you.

Yes brothers, I understand that you need to vent. And I wouldn't dream of stopping up the safety valve on a steam boiler.